Do We Need More Gun Control Laws?

You could've almost predicted the knee-jerk reponses by the left-wing gun control fanatics who want to ban all or most guns. They seem to feel that by disarming all citizens (including the vast majority of responsible gun owners) they will solve the problem of wanton killing.

Everybody deplores the senseless killings in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colorado, Ft. Hood, Arkansas, and in Arizona (the Gabby Giffords shooting) etc., but would the banning of guns have prevented these horrendous killings? Only a cock-eyed optimist would have said that would be so.

Step back a little and look at the situation without the emotional fervor that these killings engender. By claiming that it is the gun that is at fault instead of the crazed "nutjob" who pulled the trigger, is putting your head in the sand and living in la-la land.

Instead of banning guns, wouldn't it be wiser to arm certain people in order to try to mitigate the senseless toll of innocents that occur with little fear of reprisal as they perform their dastardly deeds on innocent people?

Look what has happened in the City of Chicago. So far this year, over 446 children have been shot, this has happened even though the City of Chicago has one of the strictest gun laws in place on the books in the country. It seems the good, law-abiding citizens of Chicago are at the mercy of the criminal element, who seem to have no problem getting guns, even with those strict gun control laws in place. Why are schools in Israel almost free from similar attacks like what happened in Connecticut? One reason is that teachers and security guards are armed with weapons and they are trained to use them, couldnt we do the same thing here in the U.S.A.?

Aren't teachers educated and responsible enough to be able to be a line of defense immediately if their school comes under attack? By the time police could react to a shooting or any other attack with a weapon, it might be too late to save a goodly number of victims. Of course, arming teachers wouldn't or couldn't have stopped a deranged individual intent on causing harm to others, but they could've mitigated the damage that this crazed individual(s) could do before the police arrived.

We arm our airline pilots today, with no adverse effects, the same could be for teachers, security personnel, and others in facilities that also might be targeted by either foreign or domestic terrorists or deranged individuals.

Although I'm against the banning of guns, some added restrictions might be in order such as, closing some of the loopholes on the purchase of firearms, especially at gun shows, a more thorough background check to try to weed out any psycho's who might want to purchase a firearm, and requiring prospective gun owners to take a gun education course, like what the NRA sponsors today.

Maybe, by working with the reputable gun organizations like the NRA, some sensible rules can be put into place regarding the the sale of rapid fire so-called "assault weapons"? I'm sure that reasonable people, with differeing points of view regarding guns, can join together to address the concerns of both sides. Let's bring common sense back into the discussion and leave the emotions out of the discussion. The old expression of "if you outlaw guns then only the outlaws will have guns" really does make sense. Remember, the country of Switzerland, requires all its citizens to be armed and the crime rate throughout he country is practically zero. Maybe that amazing result is trying to tell us something?

Since I don't own a gun or never have owned a gun (except a Red Ryder B-B gun as a child) my views are not colored to favor one side or the other, but I try to use common sense in expressing my views on this very emotional topic.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann